Haryana

Panchkula

CC/7/2015

KANTIBALLABH NAILWAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALBIR SINGH. - Opp.Party(s)

K.K.SAINI

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                                        

Consumer Complaint No	:	7 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	27.03.2015

                                                                                                                 

Kantiballabh Nailwal, House No.800-P, Sector-27, Panchkula.

                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

Balbir Singh S/o Late Sh.Ganga Singh, O/o SCO No.17-18, Tribune Chandigarh Road, Baltana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

IInd Address:-

R/o H.No.6-A, Swami Enclave, Dhakouli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                                    Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

For the Parties:         Complainant in person. 

Op already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Op with the averments that he hired the services of OP for the construction of three story building alongwith basement of House No.800-P, Sector-27, Panchkula as per site plan sanctioned from HUDA, Panchkula vide agreement/contract dated 15.06.2011 which was signed by both the parties. As per contract/agreement dated 15.06.2011, the total amount was settled as Rs.54,00,000/- for construction of three story building. The Op orally told the complainant that the construction of three story building would be completed within 15 months and it has nowhere been agreed that after 15 months, rates would be revised. As per the payment schedule, the OP was bound to construct three story building over the plot in total amount of Rs.54,00,000/- within 15 months i.e. 15.06.2011 to 15.09.2012 but the Op has not completed the work within 15 months even till date. Due to non-completion of work, the complainant has to pay 10 months’ rent total Rs.1,00,000/- of house no.342, secort-26, Panchkula. As per the sanctioned site plan, the covered area of basement was 100.385 sq. mtr, ground floor was 109.035 sq. mtr., frist floor was 99.945 sq. mtr. and second floor was 54.53 sq. mtr. i.e. 3917 sq. mtr. but the Op has covered the total area of the plot was 5233.30 sq. mtr. and due to the fault of Op, the complainant has to pay Rs.1,40,710/- as penalty to the office of HUDA. The complainant has paid Rs.53,84,200/- to the Op and after receipt of approx. complete amount as per payment schedule, the Op has not completed the construction work over the plot. The complainant has written a letter to the Op and requested to complete the construction work but in vain. Rather the Op has demanded Rs.18,00,000/- from the complainant for ignoring the payment schedule whereas the complainant has assessed the pending work which came to the tune of Rs.11,28,741/-. The Op has issued legal notice dated 13.07.2013 to the complainant which was duly replied by the complainant vide reply dated 19.08.2013. Thereafter, the Op has again issued legal notice dated 16.12.2013 demanding amount of Rs.18,26,222/- which was replied by the complainant vide reply dated 04.01.2014. The Op, without any arbitration clause in agreement dated 15.06.2011, has got the matter referred to the Standing Committee Private Construction Labour Contractors Union (Registered Chandigarh). Due to the act of the Op, the complainant has to pay Rs.17,826/- as electricity & water charges of his house no.800-P, sector-27, Panchkula and rented house i.e. 15.09.2012 to 15.07.2013 which is clearly deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op through registered post and the same has been received with the report of refusal. None has appeared on behalf of the Op, it is deemed to be served. The Op was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C-A and C-B alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-58 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that due to delay in construction beyond 15 months as per agreement, the complainant was constrained to pay 10 months rent @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. and total amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- of house no.342, Sector-26, Panchkula which was taken on rent by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the Op covered the area beyond the sanctioned site plan (Annexure C-4) and the complainant has to pay penalty of Rs.1,40,710/- to the HUDA due to the fault of the OP. Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the complainant has paid Rs.17,826/- as electricity charges & water charges from 15.09.2012 to 15.07.2013 in respect of the abovesaid house. However, we are not impressed by the limb of arguments as there is nothing on record to substantiate these facts. In support of his contentions, the complainant placed on record the rent deed dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure C-23) but he failed to prove that he paid the rent of Rs.1,00,000/- to the landlord as no receipt in token of payment of rent has been placed on file by the complainant. Further the complainant has placed on file the voucher (Annexure C-7 & C-8) shown the payment made in Indian Bank, Estate Office, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula on 18.04.2013 & 08.05.2013 amounting to Rs.1,36,075/- & Rs.4,660/-. In the above said voucher, the complainant has deposited compounding fees but it is not mentioned in the above said document that the compounding fees was paid by the complainant for the area constructed beyond the sanctioned plan approved by the HUDA. The complainant paid the electricity and water charges as he himself consumed the electricity & water and he was bound to pay the above said charges to the authorities. In the absence of any cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy documentary evidence, the prayer of the complainant for payment of rent paid by him, electricity charged and compounding fees paid by him to the HUDA cannot be acceded to and is hereby declined.
6. The complainant has placed on record the assessment of the pending work which was not completed by the OP (Annexure C-5) and further the affidavit of Rakesh Kumar and further the details of payment made to the Op is Annexure C-6. Evidently the complainant had paid the amount to the OP for the work which he had not completed shown in the Annexure C-5. The plight of the complainant is further evident from a glance of Annexure C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12 and C-36. As per legal notice dated 13.07.2013 (Annexure C-9) served by the Op to the complainant through Sh.Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, in para 9, the Op has admitted that some minor work has been left to be carried out for which costs is not more than about Rs.3,00,000/- and in para 14 of the abovesaid legal notice, the Op has mentioned that he is ready, bound and willing to complete the balance work at the spot and he further stated that the abovesaid amount may be deducted. The complainant, thus, certainly underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment for which he is entitled to pay compensation, on account of deficiency, in rendering proper service and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the OP.
7. The Op did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against him. The non-appearance of the Op show that he has nothing to say in his defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Op is proved.
8. In the light of the above observations, we are of the consulted view that the present complaint deserves to be succeeded and the same is accordingly allowed. The Op is directed as under:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.11,28,231/- on account of pending work left by the Op alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt till realization.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED

27.03.2015             ANIL SHARMA           ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER                       MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                     

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDENT